Canon 1200D or Nikon D3200, first DSLR

[Mark.]

There are comparisons online about these 2 entry level DSLR's but i hope to get more accurate info for my camera needs on here

Both cost about the same and both come with 18-55mm lenses.

I wouldnt say photography was a big hobby for me but i would like a good-ish camera to use regardless, I bought my mum a Canon SX700 HS for her christmas and ive found myself using it alot and figuring out the settings on manual. So far ive had decent results but im still learning and would like a camera thats a little bit better

As far as my photography goes i would say im more of an opportunist type, i dont take photos for photography puposes (if that makes sense haha) I just see something nice and i like to take a photo, usually nice landscapes, cars, animals, night sky etc. I wont be buying any external flashes or other lighting equipment, il maybe get another lense and a sturdy tripod at most.

I dont care about wifi, gps, touch screen features etc, im only concerned with image quality, i would even take suggestions for used, older cameras in the same price bracket (about £250 with lense)
and equal image quality

I dont want this to end up as a nikon vs canon thing either but these are the 2 brands im most familiar with, slightly swayed towards canon only from using previous compact models though.

Hope someone can help
Thanks

 

[jaomul]

The nikon has more resolution, higher frames per second and has higher dynamic range. The dynamic range should in theory allow for better image quality in certain situations.

Having said that the canon will also be capable of fantastic photos, but the specs of the nikon are slightly better. I'd buy nikon if it was my money, but I'd not be unhappy if I had to take the canon

 

[goodguy]

The nikon has more resolution, higher frames per second and has higher dynamic range. The dynamic range should in theory allow for better image quality in certain situations.

Having said that the canon will also be capable of fantastic photos, but the specs of the nikon are slightly better. I'd buy nikon if it was my money, but I'd not be unhappy if I had to take the canon

All that plus better low light performance, get the Nikon D3200

 

[Mark.]

Thanks for the replies,

I was settled on the Canon until i read a bit more online and the Nikon seemed to outperform in some areas. I would like the camera to be capable of some kind of astrophotography although i wouldnt expect the same results as someone who has a dedicated setup for those type of shots. I live in Scotland and you can see the northern lights and we have alot of areas with nearly no light pollution up north so id like to try my hand at taking photos of stars, moon etc.

My other photos are mostly of sunrise/sunset, landscapes so i think the extra megapixels and dynamic range could really help. With that said im still open to other suggestions as id like to hold onto the camera for a few years at least, even though its a cheaper camera id still like to get the best bang for buck

 

[TCampbell]

Thanks for the replies,

I was settled on the Canon until i read a bit more online and the Nikon seemed to outperform in some areas. I would like the camera to be capable of some kind of astrophotography although i wouldnt expect the same results as someone who has a dedicated setup for those type of shots. I live in Scotland and you can see the northern lights and we have alot of areas with nearly no light pollution up north so id like to try my hand at taking photos of stars, moon etc.

My other photos are mostly of sunrise/sunset, landscapes so i think the extra megapixels and dynamic range could really help. With that said im still open to other suggestions as id like to hold onto the camera for a few years at least, even though its a cheaper camera id still like to get the best bang for buck

Astrophotography can change everything. It really depends on what you'd like to do. I had a Nikon club out at the observatory -- they just wanted to take a photograph of the moon through the telescope. We had a bear of a time trying to focus the camera because the primary method to focus is to use use the live-view screen and magnify the image while focusing. Nikon cameras don't support exposure simulation in live view (the new D810a does -- this is a special edition of the D810 designed for astrophotography which costs about $3500 last I checked.) This mean everything was washed out white and bloated and we could not identify any contrast to obtain sharp focus. Canon cameras do support exposure simulation so the live-view image is easy to focus.

When doing astrophotography (any astrophotography) focus is always manual. Switch off the auto-focus feature. Normally you use the live-view screen and magnify it (usually to the 10x size) while pointing the camera at some reasonably bright stars. Slowly adjust focus until you minimize the size of the stars. Keeping focus off, if you want to re-compose the camera you can (just be careful not to change zoom or focus or you have to re-focus the camera.)

If you do not want stars to have "tails" then you need to know how to calculate the exposure time... for most entry level cameras use a base of either 400 or 375. Divide that number by the focal length of the lens (e.g. if using a 10mm ultra wide-angle lens it would be 400 ÷ 10 = 40.) That result (in my case "40") is the number of seconds you can leave the shutter open to capture the sky WITHOUT the stars going elongated and growing "tails" due to the rotation of the Earth. This means wide-angle lenses are king because if we tried this with a 50mm lens it would be 400 ÷ 50 = 8... and 8 seconds isn't a very long exposure to capture much detail in the night sky. You'll be using a very high ISO settings (probably at least ISO 3200).

If you have a "tracking head" for the tripod (there are a number of vendors who make these) the head can be aligned to the celestial pole (north or south pole) and as the Earth rotates from West to East, the head will rotate from East to West canceling the rotation effect of the Earth and allowing the camera to take much longer exposures without any blur. Tracking heads are devices such as the iOptron SkyTracker, the Vixen Polarie, the AstroTrac, or the Losmandy StarLapse (the Losmandy is the top system, the best build quality, most versatile, most accurate, handles the heaviest loads, etc. but also the most expensive.)

 

[Mark.]

Thanks very much for the detailed reply, very helpful

I wont be going too far into astrophotoraphy, if at all depending on the camera and lense i choose.. But it would be good to get some nice night time shots. Ive been able to pick up stars using a Canon SX700 HS @15sec , f/3.2 ISO100 so i was hoping for some better results with a proper DSLR. The Canon im using seems to only shoot at ISO100 with that speed and i had read before that ISO3200 is an ideal setting.

I was thinking using a telescope with the right adapter for the camera lense would be the cheapest option? I seen that alot of camera lenses aimed at astrophotoraphy were also really expensive.

The camera i buy will probably be packaged with a 18-55mm lense but i was also planning to get a second lense for night shots, im led to believe that a Nikkor AF 50mm f.1/8D lense would be a better lense for night shots? I honestly have no idea as i have no previous experience with cameras, im just getting started with it so im open to options. I would even be happy to get good shots of the moon and the northern lights, along with daytime landscapes etc

 

[jaomul]

50mm f1.8 are good portrait and slightly telephoto on a d3200. However an f1.8d is an older model that will not autofocus on a d3200. You'll need a 50mm f1.8 g